We have analysed the processes of argumentation of three university student groups (A: six students, C: five students, and J: seven students) while making a decision about an environmental problem (selection of a heating system). The discussions took place in three 1½‐hour sessions that were audio‐taped and transcribed. For the analysis of the oral discussions, on the one hand, we have taken into account some of the dimensions characterising the quality of this decision‐making process, including the number and variety of criteria utilised, whether criteria, which did not favour the selected option, were considered and whether priorities were established among criteria, and, on the other hand, the use of environmental concepts such as renewable and sustainability as well as the meanings that were constructed for both concepts. We have determined that the students in this study proposed and utilised, both explicitly and implicitly, a high number and great variety of criteria to support their choices, although they were rarely able to consider contradictory evidence; that is, those that demonstrated disadvantages of the option selected. In terms of the construction of knowledge, we observed that in some groups the proposed task favoured the construction of a concept of sustainability that took the future into consideration and which was utilised as the most important justification in their selection. In terms of the concept of renewable, we found that they did not relate depletion of resources to economic consequences. We discuss the implications for the educational competence development.

Science educators highlight the importance of developing systems thinking (ST) and futures thinking (FT) for students to make decisions and to be active citizens that address socioscientific problems. The dimensions related to FT take in this study were three implied in ST and two in the appropriation of the future. The aim of this study is to analyse the level of FT-related dimensions developed by a group of pre-service elementary teachers and how far different activities designed to foster them were effective. Written explanations presented by the participants about the origin of pandemics and possible ways to prevent them, as well as videos developed by small groups with the goal to present a campaign for avoiding future pandemics, were analysed. Based on the literature, five dimensions and up to four levels of performances were identified. After completing the activities, participants were able to relate the three spheres of the “One Health” notion to explain the causes of pandemics. Moreover, they established complex cause-effect relationships between the different factors, although they only constructed monocausal relationships when proposing measures. Participants improved their performance in anticipating the future and identifying themselves as agents of change. The elaboration of concept maps facilitated the development of components and behaviour ST dimensions, and the design of the campaign allowed participants to identify themselves as agents of change. The use of these strategies in science education can contribute to the development of a citizenry capable of understanding and acting on systems.

This study aims to contribute to research on systemic thinking in biology education, particularly how to best equip pre-service teachers to introduce health problems such as the COVID-19 pandemic using the “One Health” approach. We attempt to explore to what extent a group of pre-service teachers identify our lifestyle and relationships with nature as factors that contribute to the emergence of future pandemics. The research questions are as follows: (1) What dimensions of the One Health approach did the students identify as potential causes that can produce and prevent future pandemics such as the COVID-19 disease? (2) To what extent did the students show a systemic view aligned to the One Health approach? The participants were 43 pre-service elementary teachers working on a set of activities about the COVID-19 pandemic, in which they were asked about the potential causes of and ways to prevent future pandemics. Content analysis of individual written responses is applied for addressing the research questions, focusing on the dimensions of the One Health approach and the level of system thinking reflected. Most participants focused on the human dimension and a few mentioned environmental and animal dimensions, which points to the need to integrate the One Health notion into teacher training.

The science education curriculum has become increasingly focused on the study of complex systems and on the development of agency so that students make decisions on relevant issues. The current pandemic has underlined the need to look at health from a systemic “One Health” approach, but little is known about the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and actions necessary for individuals to successfully contribute to One Health. This study seeks to contribute to this knowledge, and explores preservice elementary teachers’ agency and systems thinking competencies to propose actions for preventing future pandemics from the One Health approach. The participants were 47 preservice elementary teachers working on a set of activities about the COVID-19 pandemic, in which they were asked about ways to prevent future pandemics. Content analysis of individual written responses was applied for addressing the level of systems thinking and the sense of personal and collective responsibility toward the action proposed. Results show that the preservice teachers initially referred mainly to actions in the human health dimension, and that the systems thinking showed a higher level when they made the activity in groups after reading information. Collectively proposed actions showed a lack of agency or individual responsibility compared to individually proposed ones. The implications of the results for science teaching are discussed.